"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:
Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Ilena Rose
wrote:
Disbarred attorney Mark S Probert claimed:
There is absolutely no proof that the MMR causes autism. He
is blind to the evidence.
He also claimed there is absolutely no proof that he was ever
disbarred.
See the NY Supreme Court Order to Disbar him he
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/SandraProbert.htm
So much for veracity from HealthFraud Probert.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ilena,
Welcome back. I enjoy reading your posts. Mark is also an expert
in diverting attention from the central issue in posts. For example,
if someone posts information about a study that shows that MMR
causes autism, he will attack the organization that conducted
the study instead of discussing the actual study. Often, the biases of
the sponsors of a study are as important as the results are.
It usually works
since his buddies take his side in regard to attacking the
organization
that conducted the study instead of discussing the actual study. It
reminded me of how a defense attorney representing a murderer trys to
get the members of the jury to believe that someone else
must have done the murder. This is a method of diverting attention
away from his client. He also trys to divert attention by attacking
the person that made the post related to the study. He is making use
of his legal training related to responding to posts. If anyone does
not believe me, read his future posts.
Thank you Jason, for now proving something that I suspected all along.
That's 22222222222222222 funny.
Jason Nailed you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark,
Read your most recent posts. In one case, you actually discounted one
research study while promoting another research study.
I wish you would post the URL of what you are talking about, so I would
know what you are talking about.
It's my opinion (and let me know if I am wrong) that you discount any
study results that you do not agree with and believe any study results
that support your point of view. Many people do the same thing.
Generally speaking, as you did not provide the courtesy of a link to what
you are talking about, I discount studies that are poorly done, "unique"
in the sense that they have never been replicated, done by someone who has
a proven bias, etc.
However, what you have observed is that my opinions are supported by good
science, and I dismiss bad science, if you want to call some of the crap
that.
A true scientist will read all of the research studies and try to keep an
open mind related to studies that do not support his or her point of
view.
That's nice, but irrelevant. A true scientist, and I am not a scientist,
will review a study for various things, such as selection bias,
methodology, valid sampling, appropriate use of statistical analysis, etc.
They would know that not all studies, just like not all opinions, are
created equal. Some actually are better than others.
BTW, just for your information, if wish to have further discussion with
me, I suggest that you email me.
mark{dot}probert{at}gmail{dot}com
No email, no further responses.
This is a game famous for Mark.
WARNING. Mark LIES about e-mail.
That is a PROVEN FACT.
Mark KNOWS it.
What is said should be right HERE out in the open.
NOT behind e-mail.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...549640201535a2
Mark Probert wrote:
Fri, Jun 23 2006
[Subject title. All ADHD meds are not the same..]
That is real. I offered you and Ilena a mutual cease fire, no
conditions, and you and she slapped the same condition on it.
I replied:
Sat, Jun 24 2006
No conditions? Just EXACTLY is this * cease fire* you offered?
Mark wrote:
Mon, Jun 26 2006
Addressing only the substantive issues in posts, including the biases of
the authors of articles that are posted. Period.
My reply:
So...you refuse to post your ceasefire.
Why is that, Mark?
You stated the below in this thread.
*That is real. I offered you and Ilena a mutual cease fire, no
conditions, and you and she slapped the same condition on it.*
Wed, Jun 28 2006
Mark wrote:
Oh, I see...you asked "Just EXACTLY is this * cease fire* you offered?"
when you meant to ask "Just EXACTLY where is this * cease fire* you
offered?"
You should be more clear.
It is in the archives. Look it up.
Easy to see why he refused.. again.
I did look it up.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....msg/5dc4c69029...
Subject: Dear Jan & IIena
Tues, Feb 8 2005
If they can do it, why can't we?
Israel, Palestinians Declare Ceasefire
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....msg/17a05b4c76...
Thurs, Feb 10 2005 7:06 pm
Look at the first message in this thread. It is your choice to emulate
the
Palestinians and Israelis,
What is you choice? Commence declaring Ceasefire.
RIGHT NOW.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....msg/07e38a462c...
Fri, Feb 11 2005
When you stop, I stop, not before.
Ceasfire?
1 Mark Probert Feb 12 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....msg/78eb9b427f...
Sat, Feb 12 2005 3:36 pm
Jan, if you want a ceasfire, act like it. I am tired of being the first to
turn the other cheek and being trashed by your and Ilena. My offer, like
that between Abbas and Sharon, was unconditional. My next offer will be
conditional.
Your choice.
Choose peace.
==
All should be able to see [as shown above]I already did on Feb 10 2005.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....msg/5f0e54e999...,
Feb 13 2005
I wrote:
You didn't make an offer, you posted a question, so all can see you are
lying AGAIN.
To any intelligent being, it was an offer.
That is sufficiently clear. You did not make an offer. You posted a
question.
==
Now..here is Mark Probert telling a whopper lie.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....msg/2b208c112a...
Feb 11 2005, 2:11 pm
YOU are fully responsible
for Ilena contacting my wife who is not a participant in usenet.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....msg/5f0e54e999...
From : Jan
Sent : Saturday, February 12, 2005 12:27 PM
To : "Mark Probert"
Subject : New Website Exposes Ilena Rosenthal and the Humantics
Foundation
| | | Inbox
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from mail.lumbercartel.com ([162.42.126.18]) by
mc3-f38.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Sat, 12 Feb 2005
09:28:17 -0800
Received: from mproxy.googlegroups.com ([216.239.56.131])by
mail.lumbercartel.com with esmtp (Exim 4.43)id 1D0145-0006r1-2qfor
; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:28:17 -0700
Received: by mproxy.googlegroups.com with SMTP id s51so1012553cwc for
; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:27:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.11.88.27 with SMTP id l27mr71314cwb; Sat, 12 Feb 2005
09:27:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 64.12.116.136 by f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com with HTTP; Sat,
12 Feb 2005 17:27:42 +0000 (UTC)
That IP address resolves to:
Search results for: 64.12.116.136
OrgName: America Online, Inc.
OrgID: AMERIC-158
Address: 10600 Infantry Ridge Road
City: Manassas
StateProv: VA
PostalCode: 20109
Country: US
Therefore, you sent it.
Search results for: 152.163.100.136
OrgName: America Online
OrgID: AOL
Address: 22000 AOL Way
City: Dulles
StateProv: VA
PostalCode: 20166
Country: US
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...nt/msg/9645079...
Feb 13 2005, 1:19 pm
An additional note:
Should you email me again I will construe that to be a withdrawal of your
request that not email you, and I will, when I deem it appropriate, email
you.